Summary
In Beattie, we held that a claimant who requested a transfer from the wrong person and who was referred to the proper department had to avail himself of the opportunity for transfer presented by the employer.
Summary of this case from Moss v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewOpinion
Argued December 13, 1984
October 21, 1985.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Scope of appellate review — Inconsistent findings — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Burden of proof — Health reasons — Failure to seek transfer.
1. When an unemployment compensation claimant with the burden of proving a cause of necessitous and compelling nature for his voluntary termination of employment does not prevail below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether findings are consistent with each other and with conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [326]
2. An unemployment compensation claimant asserting that reasons of health required him to terminate employment must prove that adequate reasons existed for such action and that these reasons and his inability to perform his regular duties were communicated to his employer. [326-7]
3. Emotional and psychological stress can constitute adequate health reasons for terminating employment so as to retain eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. [327]
4. Once an employe has met his burden of establishing a health problem to be a cause of necessitous and compelling nature justifying a voluntary termination of employment, the burden shifts to the employer to establish that suitable work was offered to the employe consistent with his medical condition. [327]
5. When an employe seeking unemployment compensation benefits after terminating employment for reasons of health fails to follow reasonable steps through proper channels to seek a transfer to a position consistent with his condition, benefits are properly denied. [328]
Argued December 13, 1984, before Judges MacPHAIL and BARRY, and Senior Judge BLATT, sitting as a panel of three. Reargued September 11, 1985, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., and Judges ROGERS, CRAIG, MacPHAIL, DOYLE, COLINS and PALLADINO.
Appeal, No. 1044 C.D. 1983, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of John J. Beattie, No. B-216036.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Andrew F. Erba, with him, Terry L. Fromson, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
John J. Beattie (claimant) appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which denied him unemployment compensation benefits on the grounds that he voluntarily quit his job without necessitous and compelling cause pursuant to the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). The issue for review is whether the claimant had necessitous and compelling reasons to terminate his employment as a matter of law.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
The claimant had been employed as a psychiatric assistant by Albert Einstein Medical Center (employer), his last day of work being May 14, 1982. Immediately prior to termination, claimant was absent from work on an approved medical leave of absence for drug and alcohol abuse. Upon the claimant's return, he requested a transfer from his present position because alleged drug and alcohol abuse by his immediate co-workers was not conducive to his recovery. The patient care coordinator, from whom the claimant requested this transfer, informed him that she had no power to effect the transfer, and referred him to the Personnel Director who would have knowledge of different positions available. The claimant never availed himself of this opportunity. He also refused an additional leave of absence, and voluntarily quit his position, alleging a lack of cooperation from the employer in dealing with his medical needs.
Where the party with the burden of proof in an unemployment compensation case does not prevail before the Board, our scope of review is limited to determining whether or not the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Fetterman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 78 Pa. Commw. 233, 467 A.2d 402 (1983). Whether or not a voluntary termination of employment was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is a legal conclusion, always subject to appellate review. Eduardo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commw. 424, 434 A.2d 215 (1981).
When a claimant voluntarily terminates employment, he has the burden of proof of showing necessitous and compelling reasons for his action. Kernisky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 199, 309 A.2d 181 (1973). In cases where a claimant terminates employment for medical reasons, the claimant may meet his burden by showing that at the time of termination adequate health reasons existed to justify termination and that he communicated his medical problem and inability to perform his regular duties to his employer. Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982). The claimant in this case testified that he had suffered from drug and alcohol dependency. When he completed his detoxification program, and returned to work, he believed that he was being pressured by co-workers to resume his drug habits. The claimant became depressed and suicidal. The claimant during this period of time was seeing a psychiatrist, and apparently his emotional difficulties were detrimentally affecting his mental health. The claimant's testimony in this regard is certainly competent to show that adequate health reasons existed to justify his termination. Steffy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 367, 453 A.2d 591 (1982). Emotional and psychological stress constitute adequate health reasons for termination of one's employment. Fetterman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 78 Pa. Commw. 233, 467 A.2d 402 (1983); Kernisky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 199, 309 A.2d 181 (1973). Therefore, we must hold that the Board erred, as a matter of law, insofar as its decision stated that the claimant did not have adequate health reasons for his termination.
It is also clear from the record, and the findings of the Board, that the claimant communicated to his employer his medical difficulties. The claimant has, therefore, satisfied his initial burden under the test enunciated in Genetin, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982).
The claimant having met his burden, the burden of proof shifts to the employer, who must show that he offered suitable work to the claimant consistent with the claimant's medical limitations if benefits are to be denied. "If in the event such an opportunity was proposed to appellant and he declined to avail himself of it, a finding of ineligibility under Section 401(b)(1) [sic] would then be appropriate." Genetin, 499 Pa. at 132, 451 A.2d at 1356. The claimant's immediate supervisor told the claimant that she could not transfer him, such being beyond her authority. She specifically instructed him that he should see the Personnel Director and the bulletin board in order to effect a transfer. The claimant never availed himself of this opportunity, even though he knew that it was the only way to effect a transfer. We do not believe that Genetin requires the employer to convolute their administrative processes in order to accommodate the claimant. The claimant must be available for reasonable accommodations of the employer, and when he fails to pursue such reasonable accommodations of the employer, in this case the reasonable request that the claimant pursue his desire for a transfer through the proper channels, then the employer has met its burden of showing that it provided the claimant a suitable opportunity to remain working which was rejected.
Of course, the claimant may show that such an effort on his part would have been futile, and indeed tried to show such in this case by asserting that he was told that there was a "hiring freeze" which would prevent his transfer. However, the claimant was offered an additional leave of absence, during which time the "hiring freeze" might have ended. Additionally, the Personnel Department may have made an exception to the "freeze" in the claimant's case because of the special circumstances. Therefore, we find that the claimant has not met his burden of showing futility, as a matter of law.
The employer testified concerning her instructions to the claimant to go through proper channels to effect a transfer. The Board accepted such testimony. The Board is the ultimate arbiter of credibility. Fuentes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commw. 546, 413 A.2d 449 (1980). There was no capricious disregard of competent evidence by the Board, nor did the Board err as a matter of law. Accordingly, we will affirm.
ORDER
AND NOW, October 21, 1985, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-216036, dated March 18, 1983, is affirmed.